Exactly, too much shit for you to go through so you say "FAKE NEWS" like your idol. Put up or shut up bitch...

So called "journalists" shilling for the left is no longer journalism you fucking dumb shit. It's partisan politics at that point so yes it is fake news. The hilarious part of it all is because of the left's witch hunt we now have more proof of Hillary and Obama collusion than anything else. So I guess you have that going for you.

So does my join date say Jan. of 2018? Have I not been coming to this site for YEARS and reading the shit you people post for YEARS? Is it safe to say, before Steve B got the boot, that Breitbart was a popular site for alt-right conservatives? You are analyzing my post as if I have had no previous knowledge about anything posted here from anyone and that we are all just coming to this site for the first time the day the fucking memo came out? Are you really that fucking asinine?

As I stated before: you seem to think that when you do it, it's inferring something; when someone else does it, they're putting words in someone else's mouth. How many years must someone be a member before they're allowed to do that? What I'm inferring from this is that you're merely a raging liberal. What Trump has proposed doesn't send all that terrible. I don't believe that most elected Republicans are all that conservative. Surely you've been able to grasp that with your years of experience on these boards. Na.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojopin

I think this new tactics among you wannabe Trumpkins "conservatives" (How's that budget looking?) that your is gonna really fall flat in the end with those people that can actually "think" for themselves. "Trump is colluding with Russia, GOP: NO IT WAS Hillary!!!", "Trump is a racist, Conservative Wanna-be's on EA: No it's the LIBERALS that are racist!!!".

You know, you are right. There's absolutely no evidence out there that Trump colluded with the Russians except the Manafort thing, and the Flynn thing, and the Roger Stone thing, and the Cohen thing, and the Kushner thing, and the Carter Page thing, and the Jeff Sessions things, and the Wilbur Ross thing, and the JD Gordon thing, and the Erik Prince thing, and the James Comey firing thing, and the Russian hacking/Wikileaks thing, and the bro-love between TrumPutin thing, and the Russian propaganda machine favoring Trump thing, and the DJT "I have zero ties to Russia!" thing, and the Eric Trump "we get most of our financing from Russian banks" thing, and the Donald Trump Jr. "Our portfolio is made up of a disproportionate amount of Russian money" thing, and the DJT "I sold a $60 million mansion to a Russian oligarch known for money laundering for $120 million that he never once lived in " thing, and the Trump business ties with Putin's favorite sports athlete Fedor Emilianenko thing, and the Trump International Corporation's mysterious private server connection to Alfa Bank, Russia's largest commercial bank thing, and the Special prosecutor being named thing, and the I won't release my tax returns thing, and the Ivanka Trump's vacationing with Putin's girlfriend thing, and the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow thing, and the Trump companies business ties to Felix Sater, a criminal felon indicted for stock fraud scheme with the Russian mafia thing, and the FL Group Icelandic hedge fund with massive ties to Putin being heavily invested in Trump Soho thing, and the Rex Tillerson/Exxon ties to Russia thing, and the Russian ambassador at Trump Tower sneaking in and out thing, and the Trump tried to roll back Russian sanctions the minute he got elected thing. Other than that, there's absolutely no reason to suspect anything... you fucking morons.

There isn't evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. If having any sort of ties to Russia or a Russian equates to evidence of colluding with the Russian government to get elected, guess what that means?

It's interesting to me that those on the left like Mojodouche, don't see the difference in how the main stream media treats Trump vs how they treated Obama for the past 8 years, and also don't see a problem with that either. Do they not want factual based news regardless of party? Or do they love their little progressive echo chamber so much that reality simply doesn't matter to them? There's a reason the mistrust of the media continues to rise, people are tired of the progressive narrative at all costs. America is a sovereign nation, get fucking used to it.

It's also amazingly interesting that the idea of putting Americans before illegals is somehow racist in their view. Um no, no it's not fucking racist, it's common sense.

It's interesting to me that those on the left like Mojodouche, don't see the difference in how the main stream media treats Trump vs how they treated Obama for the past 8 years, and also don't see a problem with that either. Do they not want factual based news regardless of party? Or do they love their little progressive echo chamber so much that reality simply doesn't matter to them? There's a reason the mistrust of the media continues to rise, people are tired of the progressive narrative at all costs. America is a sovereign nation, get fucking used to it.

It's also amazingly interesting that the idea of putting Americans before illegals is somehow racist in their view. Um no, no it's not fucking racist, it's common sense.

You know the answers to your questions and concerns if you think about them. Obama was treated better because he was simply a better person. People mistrust the media because they're backwater rubes. White Americans don't like immigrants because those immigrants are brown. What you call common sense is just another form of White Privilege. These statements all sound ridiculous to you and I but the other side really does believe them.

Yeah, because Mick Mulvaney has been so "unbiased" and "accurate" in the past... LOLOLOL

Here is a link to Trump's proposed 2019 budget. The previous article isn't based around Mulvaney's claims -- it's based around Trump's released proposal.

Here is what the article your response is aimed at included concerning Mulvaney:

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hill

Office of Management and Budget Director (OMB) Mick Mulvaney and Cabinet secretaries will be fanning out on Capitol Hill this week to testify on the budget and defend Trump's proposals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHill

In an addendum to the budget, Mulvaney said the administration “strongly” supports the defense spending levels in the budget deal but is proposing to fund nondefense discretionary programs at the level that's $57 billion below the new cap.

“We believe that this level responsibly accounts for the cap deal while taking into account the current fiscal situation,” Mulvaney wrote.

You made a comment about the budget, I responded with Trump's released proposal, and your response is that you obvious think a guy mentioned is biased and inaccurate. Um, okay.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

You made a comment about the budget, I responded with Trump's released proposal, and your response is that you obvious think a guy mentioned is biased and inaccurate. Um, okay.

Because he has a history of it maybe? You know, I remember the shit that people have done and said and when they were patently wrong, I'm guessing you don't remember his proposals of how much getting rid of Obama care would cost... and how it compared to the unbiased report given by the CBO (headed by a republican) which Trump didn't like one bit, LOL. You really have the safety cap on too tight today don't you? So, let's see what ridiculous circles you are gonna run around in now without answering anything with any substance... this should be hilarious. (I'm sure this one will be quoted...lol)

Because he has a history of it maybe? You know, I remember the shit that people have done and said and when they were patently wrong, I'm guessing you don't remember his proposals of how much getting rid of Obama care would cost... and how it compared to the unbiased report given by the CBO (headed by a republican) which Trump didn't like one bit, LOL. You really have the safety cap on too tight today don't you? So, let's see what ridiculous circles you are gonna run around in now without answering anything with any substance... this should be hilarious. (I'm sure this one will be quoted...lol)

Okay, it seems to be a reading comprehension problem on your part. The point was: Mulvaney making a comment doesn't remove the facts of the budget proposal. In fact, the number he cites is explicitly mentioned in the budget proposal. From the official proposal:

Quote:

Non-Defense Spending
In this addendum, the Administration proposes 540 billion in NDD spending, 75 billion above the current FY 2019 Budget, 10 billion above the pre-BBA NDD spending cap of approximately 530 billion set in the 2019 Sequestration Preview Report, and 57 billion below the new cap. We believe that this level responsibly accounts for the cap deal while taking into account the current fiscal situation. Spending at the levels included in the cap deal would add an additional 680 billion to the Nation's deficit over ten years above the FY 2019 Budget.

As for Mulvaney's claims regarding the cost of repealing Obamacare, they're true. What people argue is that they're misleading because they believe the states would be unable or unwilling to fund the medicare expansion themselves. Now places like Politicrap, err, Politicfact rate his claim "Mostly False."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicrap

Mulvaney said the House Republican health care "plan doesn't get rid of Medicaid expansion."

The House Republican health care proposal does not explicitly repeal the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. But by wringing out the funding that supports the expansion starting in 2020, experts predict states will have little choice but to abandon some or all of the expansion. In seven states, it’s actually required by state law.

Mulvaney’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

Mulvaney's statement, as quoted, is 100% true. Of course, Politifact also has a long record of being biased and inaccurate. I'm guessing it's the right kind of bias and inaccuracy for you.

If you'd like to see a lack of substance, you should feel free to look through your own posts.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

Trump wants to get rid of EBT, bring back (free cheese). This is fucking beautiful. If this happens i may be able to die a happy man.

When i was a kid we had to go to the free cheese line for a while. We drove, to a building and picked up government approved food. Even for a 6 year old who had no control over it, it was humiliating. Just as it should have been.

This new deal will have the food being delivered. Please god, i beg you, let this happen.

__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy

Trump wants to get rid of EBT, bring back (free cheese). This is fucking beautiful. If this happens i may be able to die a happy man.

When i was a kid we had to go to the free cheese line for a while. We drove, to a building and picked up government approved food. Even for a 6 year old who had no control over it, it was humiliating. Just as it should have been.

This new deal will have the food being delivered. Please god, i beg you, let this happen.

And the left is spinning it as Trump wants to take away food stamps totally, while omitting the fact that he wants to give them actual food instead.

I actually don't see the delivery angle working. So many butthurt poors will (never receive their package)

Going to pick up your food is a better idea, and cheaper.

What they ought to do is limit what they can buy. I had one yesterday pull up to my part time gig for extra cash on the side retail store, brand new bmw using ebt. Another one later in the night driving a lexus Suv, ebt. It's like you fuckers can afford 50+ thousand dollar vehicles yet need my tax dollars for red bull and twinkies. wtf? Never mind the ones that use EBT then pull out a wad of 20's and start buying 10-30 dollar lottery instant tickets. It's like you're not fooling anyone, stop stealing from those who actually need the help. And the funny thing is it's always the hispanics who seem to have all this money in their pocket yet have EBT cards.

I see it all the time. I have an illegal Mexican stronghold about 15 mins from where i live. Don't forget about the Handicap tags when have ability to walk..

I watched a mexican (non English speaking) lady at wal mart try 4 different EBT cards at checkout, non of which worked. Finally when she pulled out the cash i said, (that outta work huh?) The ladies kid looked up at me and the woman never even flinched.

I mean it when i say i call people out their bullshit in public. I'm mean looking enough to get away with it, but if you've got the look and don't mind potentially making a scene (i do not) then fucking do it. I want these people uncomfortable enough to leave.

__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy

The whole EBT transfer to cash and lack of accountability has been a big problem. The idea of a debit card was great but the inability to ensure it could only be used for proper staple items is where it went wrong.

Nothing you can buy in a gas station should be available via EBT. Perhaps a mix of both a EBT, authorized locations with proper inventory much like would be stocked in a food bank.